No Pseudonymity in #TheyLied Defamation Case Over Sexual Assault Allegations

From Doe v. Doe, decided today by Judge F. Kay Behm (E.D. Mich.):

Plaintiff [John Doe] and Defendant [Jane Doe] are half-siblings and have known each other for over forty years. Plaintiff owns a law firm that operates nationwide, with a primary business address in Oakland County, Michigan. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant deteriorated when Defendant allegedly failed to perform on a contract to work for Plaintiff, and defaulted on a personal loan. A few days after Plaintiff terminated the contract for Defendant to work for Plaintiff, Defendant called Plaintiff’s former spouse and told her that 30 years ago Plaintiff got Defendant drunk and sexually assaulted her. Plaintiff says this statement by Defendant is false and defamatory….

Generally, there is a presumption of open judicial proceedings in the federal courts; proceeding pseudonymously is the exception rather than the rule. Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the complaint state the names of all parties. In order to circumvent this requirement, it must be shown that the need for anonymity substantially outweighs the presumption that parties’ identities are public information and the risk of unfairness to the opposing parties….

[Plaintiff argues that] “[c]ourts generally allow a plaintiff to litigate under a pseudonym in cases containing allegations of sexual assault because they concern highly sensitive and personal subjects.” And because Defendant is his half-sibling, the disclosure of either party would lead to the inevitable disclosure of the other.

The court is cognizant that the accusation of sexual misconduct can itself invite harassment and ridicule. But the public has an interest in the openness of judicial proceedings; “if courts were to allow mutual pseudonymity in sexual assault-related libel or slander suits, then ‘whole areas of the law could become difficult for the media and the public to monitor, outside the constrained accounts of the facts offered up by judges and lawyers.'” Although Plaintiff credibly asserts that disclosure of the parties’ names may mean that internet search results will associate them with this lawsuit and its potentially sensitive facts, that is not a factor unique to this particular Plaintiff justifying a departure from Rule 10.

Other than the implied, and speculative, reputational damage to his law firm, Plaintiff does not assert a specific, individualized claim of potential retaliation or harassment. See Doe v. Megless (3d Cir. 2011) (“That a plaintiff may suffer embarrassment or economic harm is not enough.”). The court finds it telling that Plaintiff failed to cite a single case in which a plaintiff in a defamation or libel action was allowed to proceed pseudonymously against an alleged victim of sexual assault. See Roe v. Doe 1-11 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (“The Court finds it highly persuasive that Plaintiff fails to and is unable to cite a single case in which a plaintiff, suing for defamation and alleging he was falsely accused of sexual assault, was allowed to proceed anonymously against the victim of the purported assault.”); DL v. JS (W.D. 2023)….

Seems correct to me; for more on this, see this post.